Leech Homes Ltd v Northumberland County Council

An appeal concerning a certificate of appropriate alternative development under section 18 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is a proceeding “for compensation for compulsory purchase” within rule 10(6)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010. The Upper Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to award costs in such an appeal.

The phrase is to be construed broadly. Although the appeal does not itself assess or award compensation, its sole purpose is to determine planning assumptions relevant to compulsory-purchase compensation. Section 17(10) provides a separate potential compensatory head for a claimant’s qualifying expenses. It neither excludes the Tribunal’s costs jurisdiction nor permits double recovery.

Leech Homes Ltd, whose land had been compulsorily acquired by Northumberland County Council, unsuccessfully appealed a negative certificate of appropriate alternative development. The substantive appeal was dismissed in [2020] UKUT 150 (LC).

On written representations about costs, the Council sought its costs of that unsuccessful section 18 appeal. The issue was whether the Tribunal’s power under section 29 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, as limited by rule 10(6)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010, extended to a section 18 appeal.

1. The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction and ordered the appellant to pay the Council’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

2. Rule 10(6)(a) was to be read broadly. A section 18 appeal is a proceeding for compulsory-purchase compensation because it exists solely to determine the planning assumptions used in assessing that compensation. It need not itself culminate in an assessment or payment of compensation.

3. The same planning issues may arise within a compensation reference without a certificate, or in a combined certificate appeal and compensation reference. It would be anomalous and illogical for costs jurisdiction to differ merely because those issues were resolved through the certificate procedure. The Tribunal endorsed the broad, non-fragmented classification of proceedings stated in BPP (Farringdon Road) Ltd v Crossrail Ltd, [2015] UKUT 356 (LC).

4. Section 17(10) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 was compatible with that conclusion. It concerns the claimant’s recoverable expenses in obtaining a certificate and does not exclude a costs order under section 29. A party awarded its costs cannot recover the same costs again as compensation. Section 4 operates additionally, and prevails to the extent of conflict.

5. The appellant’s own costs required no order. They could be considered in a future compensation determination under section 17(10).

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The substantive section 18 appeal was dismissed in [2020] UKUT 150 (LC). This subsequent determination held that the Tribunal had costs jurisdiction and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.